Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Nov. 2nd, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Good morning. We'll call our meeting to order.

We welcome representatives from various churches who are here today to talk to us about refugee issues in general and refugee issues especially as they relate to sanctuary.

I will ask you to introduce yourselves. I think you know how we operate. You make an opening statement of five to seven minutes, and then our committee members will ask questions or make comments.

I think I'll pass it over to whoever wishes to go first.

Mary Jo, feel free to make an opening statement; then the committee will engage you in questions and comments. Please go ahead.

[Mary Leddy, Director of Romero House of Refugees, Sanctuary Coalition of Southern Ontario]

Bonjour, mesdames et messieurs. My name is Mary Jo Leddy, and I've been a member of the Ontario Sanctuary Coalition for fifteen years. My remarks will be general, and they will be followed by some very specific remarks by other people.

The offer of sanctuary begins as a moment of conscience. Someone—a mother, a father, a person who is alone—knocks at the door of the church and asks for help. The minister, the priest, or a member of the congregation, sometimes a secretary, is then faced by another desperate human being, and these Christians are then forced to face themselves and to respond to the summons that this refugee presents.

This is the ethical moment, and it has been repeated many times over in this country. It is indeed remarkable how many modest, middle-class congregations have opened their doors to provide sanctuary to a refugee whose life is in danger. It is a fearsome commitment for these congregations. It places the congregations at legal risk and it demands incredible daily fidelity.

Those of us who have been involved in providing sanctuary are not more caring or more moral than any of you. We simply see the refugee from a different point of view. We do not see a case. We do not see a file number. We do not see a political issue. We simply see the person who faces us and searches us out as Christians.

No church leader tells congregations to offer sanctuary. No church leader can make us stop. I mention this because I was part of a delegation of church leaders who met with former immigration minister Judy Sgro. They were the leaders of churches where congregations had offered sanctuary, and the minister was disturbed by the growing number of churches that were offering sanctuary. At that meeting, she asked the church leaders to tell the congregations to stop, and offered them a back channel for resolving their difficulties.

The minister said the church leaders could come to her in private once a year with twenty cases that would be dealt with in that quiet, private way. The church leaders refused this option, and quite wisely so, certainly for the simple reason that they did not want a private process that was available to them and not to other religious groups, that was available to them and not to other advocacy groups. Secondly and more importantly, they acknowledged that we did not ask these congregations to do this and that we cannot make them stop, because this is a question of conscience.

This movement of conscience will continue—I want to assure you of that—as long as there is no effective mechanism of appeal in the refugee determination process. As I see it—and I see it daily—the present Immigration Act gives enormous power, the power of life and death, to single immigration officers, and this act is based on the premise that those officers do not make mistakes. Within the act, there is provision for an appeal on the merits, but it has never been implemented.

What we have now is a labyrinth of partial appeals, which do not add up to a single, whole consideration. It has been argued that to implement an appeal process would be costly, but from where I sit, it would be far less costly and less expensive than the inefficient morass that swamps the refugee determination process.

For the last year, a family from Costa Rica has been living in the church of St. Philip Neri in Toronto. I have met with them; I have met with their pastor, Father John Juhl. The family is disintegrating, haunted by depression.

It is argued that there are no refugees from Costa Rica. This father was a police officer in a drug enforcement squad. He learned too much about the drug cartel, which is overwhelming that country. The police have now admitted they could not protect him. Evidence accumulates every day, and it becomes clear why he cannot return to Costa Rica.

It seems now as if everyone has washed their hands of this family and others. Bureaucrats within the department are not willing to admit that sometimes, maybe a mistake is made. Sometimes, probably often, it is simply because they have a workload that is overwhelming. They do not have the resources with which to resolve cases. The minister could; ministerial discretion was made for moments such as this.

We in the sanctuary movement, the group I belong to, believe that Canada has signed international agreements that oblige it to protect refugees whose lives are in danger. When the government will not do that, citizens are obliged to take a civil initiative to do so, so that we honour the laws of our country.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you.

I should have said in the beginning that we have five churches represented here today: the United Church of Canada, the First Unitarian Congregation of Ottawa, St. Joseph's Roman Catholic Church, All Saints Lutheran, and the Presbyterian Church in Canada.

Now we will move to Heather Macdonald.

[Heather Macdonald, Program Coordinator, Refugee and Migration, Justice and Global Ecumenical Relations, The United Church of Canada]

Hello. My name is Heather Macdonald.

First of all, I want to thank the committee for having us here today and for their interest. I'm also going to be asking for your support.

I'm going to speak about the United Church's long-standing involvement in refugee work. In the twenties and thirties, we were working with Armenian orphans. After World War II, we were meeting the boat trains that were bringing refugees from the war. Since the signing of the master agreement in 1979, we've settled many thousands of refugees. We've been involved in the founding of refugee-serving agencies in Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg, and Edmonton. We've been involved in community development work, especially with the Afghan Women's Organization.

We were founding members of ICIR and the standing committee that grew into the Canadian Council for Refugees. We are part of KAIROS: Canadian Ecumenical Justice Initiatives, which works on social justice. And our members and our congregations are deeply committed to refugee claimants and sponsored refugees. It's from this that our sanctuary practice has grown.

What is sanctuary? For us it is a public appeal for justice in the face of a terrible wrong. It is an attempt to uphold the law. It is not covert. It is not underground activity. In upholding the need for sanctuary, the church asks that justice, compassion, and the lives of refugees be respected.

Government, in streamlining the refugee determination system, has sacrificed justice for refugees by choosing not to implement the refugee appeal. The cost of that decision is refugee lives. In the face of what we believe is an injustice, we may consider the moral witness of sanctuary or receive distressed, desperate people within the holy confines of a church building.

Historical traditions inform our sanctuary action, and it may be a form of civil disobedience, but we act not in defiance of the law. Really, sanctuary, as a prophetic action, displays ultimate respect for the law and the justice it demands of it. It's inspired by two commandments—love of God and love of neighbour—and we understand that the public face of God's love is justice.

Our members are engaged to ensure the protection needs of both refugee claimants: those who come to Canada on their own; and resettled or sponsored refugees, those selected abroad. As such, we encounter those who sometimes need our help. We believe our help is an act of obedience. Through families such as the Raza family, in sanctuary in Winnipeg, we feel we are being accountable to a deeper law and to God.

How do we plan for a sanctuary? Well, there is a lot of prayerful discernment. It must be a community action. We never act alone or even as an isolated faith community. Because conscience is partially shaped by prejudices and biases and we can be mistaken, we need the wisdom of others in the passions of the moment.

We question our motivation. We need to honestly reflect on what it is, why we are doing it, and for whose sake we are doing it. What could we or those more at risk, the refugees, gain or lose? We ask that it be an informed decision. We look to see what other options are available. For us, it should only be a last resort while we continue to work on all other possible legal avenues of protest. We consult with Amnesty International, with local sanctuary coalitions, with lawyers, and with CIC.

It's not a solution. It's a time for a sober second thought for transformation of the law. We appreciate that there is no guarantee of success, and the congregation and the refugee must also understand that. We recommend that congregations consider development of a protocol even before they're put in a situation that demands a response.

We try to protect the credibility and the practice of sanctuary for those who need it most. We have refused more requests than we have ever accepted. It may come as a surprise to you that it is not something we want to do. Rather, it is something we must do.

In our denomination, congregations make their own decision. There is a handbook that informs that decision--available, sadly, only today in English--should you wish to see it. We work with congregations so they make informed decisions. We work respectfully with government officials to resolve the problem with integrity to everyone's satisfaction. We always try to avoid sanctuary if possible, because it's exhausting, physically and emotionally; it's expensive; it's tedious; and in the long run, it's just plain boring. But when a commitment is made to a refugee, we honour the commitment. We are firm and persistent in what we understand to be the truth.

Since 1983, the United Church has had 14 cases in sanctuary, six of those 14 since 2002, when multiple sanctuaries simultaneously began to happen. We ask if it's a coincidence that this coincides so completely with the IRPA legislation--the single decision-maker and the lack of an appeal.

An observation I've made is that the United Church seems to specialize in families in sanctuaries. I think it's because for us the principle of family reunification and best interests of Canadian children inform our work. Our own church policy or laws ask that we respond to the needy; offer hospitality to strangers, sanctuary to the endangered; love our neighbours whether we like them or not; provide justice for the persecuted and protection for the weak and the homeless.

Our general council policies have consistently asked that we call upon our government to implement the right of a merits-based appeal for refused refugee claimants, which is provided for in IRPA. With RAD in place, we also believe sanctuary pressures on our church would be far less. Ideally, Canada should be the sanctuary.

To paraphrase the words of Sandwell, the honorary chairperson of the Canadian National Committee on Refugees just shortly after World War II, the obligation to grant sanctuary is not and never has been unlimited, but the obligation to grant sanctuary still exists. Nations that ignore this obligation will suffer, as all nations ultimately do who ignore the fundamental and moral obligation and the debt that man and nations owe to the human being at their gates, simply because he or she is a human being.

I think that text still speaks to the discussion. Canada is obligated to provide sanctuary to those in need, and there are times like the present, given the lack of appeal, when as citizens and human beings we have a fundamental and moral obligation to provide sanctuary within Canada.

As a church, we want to concentrate on working with asylum seekers, resettling refugees, especially from these offices of refugees. We cannot get enough cases from our visa offices. We want to work for migrant justice. We want to work with our government on healthy immigration programs that reflect real labour and family reunification needs. But given the lack of protection, the non-implementation of the appeal has exacerbated the need for sanctuary within Canada. Therefore, we look to you, members of Parliament, to ensure that the protection needs of refugees are met and we can get on with the other work of the church.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you, Ms. Macdonald.

Mr. Gauthier.

[Pierre Gauthier, Refugee Outreach Committee, St. Joseph's Roman Catholic Church]

I am happy to be able to appear before your committee. Allow me first to talk to you briefly about the group of volunteers that I have the honour of representing.

For more than 16 years, the Refugee Outreach Committee of St. Joseph's Parish on Laurier Avenue in Ottawa has befriended the newly arrived refugees in Canada's capital area. The usual role of the committee is to carry out simple acts of everyday kindness. For refugees in need, we help find living quarters, furniture, warm clothes, and jobs.

In 2005, for our first time ever, we took the extraordinary step of providing sanctuary for a most worthy case. We felt duty-bound in conscience to help a refugee claimant who was ordered deported without a complete, fair, and just hearing.

After spending a year in a sanctuary with our help, Maoua Diomande was authorized to remain in Canada. We are grateful to the Minister, who, once all the facts had been uncovered, decided to issue the permit on compassionate grounds.

However, and this is an important point for you to consider, a church congregation should not be put in a position in which its only recourse is to provide sanctuary for refugee claimants. Churches have been put in the invidious position of offering sanctuary only because the refugee determination system is not working properly. Clearly, when a valid refugee claimant has to turn to a church for help, there is a problem with the system.

Of course, everyone here wants a fair and equitable system that is more effective. Based on our experience, the absence of an appeal process poses a serious problem. Our refugee status claimant lived in fear of being removed from Canada without having had the opportunity to appeal. Although we brought her case to the attention of the public, we had no other choice than to let her take sanctuary in our place of worship. Countless other refugee status claimants—hundreds and maybe even thousands—have been turned down by Canada because they did not have the opportunity to fully present their case.

I will give you our recommendations.

Our first recommendation to you, members of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, is to again ask the government to implement the refugee appeal division, as called for in an act of Parliament legislated in 2002. We ask that you call for this implementation as a matter of fairness and justice. We ask on behalf of refugee claimants whose cases, owing to the lack of an appeal process, have not been properly heard or have been ignored.

We recommend that your committee demand that the government rapidly set about reorganizing and staffing the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. Pressing changes should be made immediately.

The recent IRB report to your committee stated the insufficient number of members at hearings. The report also noted that the recruitment of competent members was progressing slowly. We encourage your committee to demand that the IRB immediately set about eliminating the chaos created by the congestion in its activities. It is clear that the number of members must be increased in order to solve the immigration backlog. In addition, the process of selecting and appointing members must be depoliticized to ensure greater fairness and justice.

Further to the IRB reorganization, we recommend that your committee urge the government to question the fairness of a system that allows the plight of a refugee claimant to be decided by a single member.

From our experience, we note that the person or member ruled against the three refugee claimants represented by the church groups here. Following their rejection and with no access to appeal, the three claimants sought sanctuary.

We recommend that your committee ask the government to provide the IRB and Citizenship and Immigration Canada with instructions concerning the language rights of refugee status claimants. At Board hearings, claimants should have the right to be heard in either of Canada's two official languages. However, we have noticed that the fundamental language rights of refugee status claimants were not always respected. Your committee should insist that the IRB apply the refugee status claim process in accordance with the spirit and the letter of the Official Languages Act. In addition, based on our experience, the quality of the translation of all the languages used at hearings needs improvement.

We recommend that your committee urge the government to take steps to make sure that the IRB and the CIC are accountable to the public they serve. This has not been the case. For instance, for the entire year we cared for a refugee claimant in sanctuary, the bureaucracy avoided talking to us. In the meantime, the government states, on the CIC website and elsewhere, that the current system is fair and generous. Our experience indicates otherwise.

Thank you for listening to me and giving me the opportunity to speak to you about these issues.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you, Mr. Gauthier.

Now we go to Mr. Walt.

[Gordon Walt, Vice-Chair, Congregational Council, All Saints Lutheran Church]

Good morning. My name is Gordon Walt, and I am vice-chair of the Congregational Council of All Saints Lutheran Church here in Ottawa. Thank you for allowing me to address you on behalf of my parish.

The Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada was established as an immigrant church, and our parish reflects this in our demographics, as we have many recent immigrants from Africa and Asia. All Saints has also cooperated with the government sponsorship program for many years in the acceptance of refugees from several parts of the world, supporting their integration into life in Canada. However, the granting of sanctuary to Moti Nano, one of our own members, is the first time our parish has been forced to take such drastic action to save the life of a young Ethiopian refugee. Moti is 34 years old and has been living in sanctuary in our church building for more than nine months.

Other speakers have told us about the acceptance of sanctuary in Canada, but in our view, because the refugee process does not work as well as it should, we, as churches, find ourselves in the position of either obeying our government and allowing it to send back someone whose life is in real danger, or helping the person by providing sanctuary, and therefore appearing to oppose our own government. We are naturally very angry and upset about being put in this position, but as people of faith, we really do not have any other choice.

One of the main factors in the decision by All Saints to offer sanctuary to Moti Nano was that he had been an active covenant member of the congregation since his arrival in Ottawa in July 2001. He is a lifelong Lutheran--his father is a Lutheran pastor in Ethiopia--and is also a member of the church house group who first made our congregation aware of his ongoing difficulties with the refugee process.

At a special meeting our congregation voted overwhelmingly in favour of providing sanctuary. However, it did become an issue in our parish. We formed a special sanctuary committee to manage the financial and other forms of support for Moti. One very troubling concern for many of our members of having someone in sanctuary in the church building was the fear of our own government. We are law-abiding citizens by choice and by faith commitment, and the consequences that were rumoured that might result were many--for example, loss of public service jobs and pensions, being arrested and jailed, loss of charitable status for our church, and either a fine of $50,000 or two years in jail for our leaders. There was a feeling that by offering sanctuary the rights and privileges of our citizens might be in jeopardy from our own government and its authorities.

Fortunately, our government, through the Canada Border Services Agency, has chosen to honour the tradition of sanctuary and has told us it will not enter our church building to remove Mr. Nano. As Mary Jo has indicated, the provision of sanctuary in a church building that was not designed for residential living has also been a huge challenge. It involved some building renovations, the provision of meals, companionship, medical and dental care, and emotional and spiritual support. In addition, there are significant legal costs in dealing with the current processes. Finances were raised through fundraising events and personal contributions by members of the congregation. This requires a lot of ongoing effort by our committee members and the parish as a whole. For Moti Nano, sanctuary is really a form of voluntary imprisonment, which, when it endures for a long time, can be quite debilitating, even for a person of strong personal faith like him.

Talking a bit about the process, it's been a genuine challenge for Moti and those supporting him to deal with a system that often seems overly bureaucratic and unresponsive and whose sense of fair process and timing is questionable. As examples, a personal information form must be filed within 28 days of arrival, but in Moti's case the hearing did not take place for two years and seven months. This is a very long and difficult wait for anyone, but especially challenging for those who live in fear and uncertainty.

This long period also gives the claimant time to find employment and housing and become integrated into life in Canada.

Moti was fortunate that he had good language, interpersonal, and computer skills, as well as support of friends in the church and community. He was able to fit into a life in Canada very easily and find employment. He has never been a burden to our social support network. He worked and supported himself in his own apartment, obtained a driver's licence, and travelled to conferences in Nova Scotia and Winnipeg and to visit friends. He took courses and generally enjoyed what he thought was the beginning of a new life in Canada.

By entering sanctuary, Moti has given up this life, including his apartment, his job, and some of his social relationships.

As far as the hearing process is concerned, it seems to be designed from the perspective of someone living in Canada. There seems to be an assumption that a refugee claimant will feel totally safe and free to communicate all information to the adjudicator, as it is in his best interest to do. Because as Canadians we have not lived with the fear of torture and the presence of spies in our bureaucracy and in our jobs, the fact that people would hesitate to tell everything in front of strangers, including interpreters, does not seem to enter into the design and conduct of the hearing process.

However, in our experience with Moti Nano, there were times when this assumption may not have been true. For example, Moti continues to be very concerned about the threat of persecution as a former human rights worker if he returned to Ethiopia, based on his history of harassment, intimidation, imprisonment, and torture.

The evidence supporting this level of fear, such as reports from Amnesty International, do not seem to be weighed as highly as our own government's research documents and the opinion of the adjudicator.

Since there's only one adjudicator, who may be biased or poorly informed about the current situation in a foreign country, the adjudicator's opinion becomes precedent-setting, and any appeal of a negative decision requires you to provide enough information to overturn this opinion.

In this case, the negative decision was taken, stating that there was also no documentary evidence that human rights workers are being persecuted in Ethiopia, in spite of the fact that there was information to the contrary readily available from Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International.

There is another example from the hearing. The presence of an interpreter--or in Moti's case, an interpreter and an interpreter-in-training, both from Ethiopia, but who are not from his own ethnic community and who have not been met and vetted by the claimant in advance--can be fear-inducing and inhibit the claimant in his testimony. He is still fearful that one or both of them would supply information about him to the Ethiopian embassy, and that the embassy would find out about the people who might be named and harass them in Ethiopia. This fear can weaken a person's initial claim.

On the aspect of appeal, if a claimant is rejected, he or she is denied the opportunity to meet with the person who rejected the claim to present a differing point of view. Once the decision has been made, all appeals and further submissions are to the courts or to an anonymous bureaucracy. There is a lack of dignity and fairness for the claimant in these processes.

It also appears to us that government employees are reluctant to question what an adjudicator or senior person may have written.

As far as recommendations are concerned, they will no doubt support what others have said or will say today. Based on our experience with Moti Nano and the provision of sanctuary for him, we are offering four recommendations.

First, the Government of Canada should immediately implement the refugee appeals division of its own act of June 2002. The current system of appealing to the courts is not a fair and reasonable process. A refused claimant should have access to a just hearing, especially since the initial hearing now has only one adjudicator. An adequate process could help remove the need for churches to provide sanctuary. And as another speaker has mentioned, we don't want to be in this business. It's too time-consuming.

Also, there should be a means of accrediting persons, such as lawyers, personal advocates, and organizations that offer services to refugee claimants, so that there is some minimum standard of competence. This could be applied first to the legal profession.

Regarding the appointment of board members, there is an excellent book some of you may have heard about. It was written by Peter Showler, a former member of the board and chair for six years. It is called Refugee Sandwich. According to him, the appointment of board members should be entirely based on competence; the political level should be completely removed from the selection process.

Pierre and others have spoken about the need for resources. The government needs to ensure that there are adequate human resources and that they are structured to ensure that the services provided to refugee claimants are timely and efficient, so that long delays in processing claims and appeals do not occur. This includes the need to correct the current lack of cooperation among departments and agencies.

Thank you very much for allowing me to speak to you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you, Mr. Walt.

We will now go to Mr. Nagy.

[Phil Nagy, Chair, Hitschmanova Committee, Unitarian-Universalist Congregation, First Unitarian Congregation of Ottawa]

Thank you. My name is Philip Nagy. I'm representing the First Unitarian Congregation of Ottawa.

Ottawa First Unitarian fully supports the points made in the previous briefs. The case of Samsu Mia, who lived in sanctuary at First Unitarian for 18 months, illustrates some of the problems encountered within the CIC system.

Samsu Mia lived in sanctuary at Ottawa First from July 2003 to December 2004, when Minister Judy Sgro granted him and his family permission to come to and stay in Canada on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.

Mr. Mia came to Canada in 1995 as a domestic employee of a senior official in the Bangladeshi High Commission. He was treated as a slave. His wages were withheld. He was not given his contractual trips home. He had to sleep on the floor, and his shoes and passport were confiscated.

In 1999 he escaped and attempted to recover his wages and passport. He, his family at home, and his rescuer in Canada, a Bangladeshi Canadian, were all threatened.

Mr. Mia's initial refugee claim was turned down by a single judge on the grounds that this was simply a personal dispute between two individuals. The judge ignored the fact that one individual was an illiterate cook and the other a powerful official. Shortly after the turndown, Mr. Mia's brother in Bangladesh was threatened by a different official, who had been transferred home from Canada. This was new evidence, and evidence of continuing danger, but there was no way to present it under present procedures.

Judicial reviews of the case actually agreed that the initial judge had failed to consider all evidence, but concluded that Mia had failed to show that the Bangladeshi government was unable to protect him. This was a situation in which officials of the same government were in fact the problem.

In 2001 his son in Bangladesh was beaten and admonished to “Tell your father to be quiet and go home.” In March 2003, the pre-removal risk assessment noted that this beating, although reported in a humanitarian and compassionate application, was not documented. The result was a removal order.

It would have been better if a decision on removal had been delayed to allow time to document the son's beating. In many countries doctors are reluctant to provide such evidence out of fear for their own safety. With the help of one of our contacts, a Canadian who operates several orphanages in Bangladesh, documentation was finally obtained, but it took some time. However, there was no procedure in place to allow him to present this new evidence; the decision had been taken.

There are times when a refugee cannot get such evidence; there are times when it takes longer; there are times when the need is not understood until it is too late.

In July 2003 Mr. Mia went into sanctuary in our church. Sanctuary is no small commitment, either for the individual involved or for the church. That is one reason it is used so rarely.

Mr. Mia became a voluntary prisoner in the church for a period that eventually became 18 months. With no guarantee of success, the congregation committed itself to provide for all of Mr. Mia's needs, including sending money to Bangladesh to support his family for an indefinite period.

For the first year we provided 24-hour accompaniment out of fear that either CIC or the RCMP might enter the building and remove him. Only a deep belief that an injustice had been done sustained the effort.

In the first weeks of sanctuary, we were kept under surveillance by unknown individuals in cars with diplomatic plates. We continued to collect evidence. On the basis of the dossier we put together and their own research, Amnesty International supported Mr. Mia's case. The turning point, I believe, was when a refugee from Bangladesh gave oral evidence to an MP that he was unwilling to put in writing out of fear for his own safety. The MP, Marlene Catterall, conveyed the information to the minister. Finally, in December 2004, the humanitarian and compassionate application was successful.

Let me move to subsequent events.

Please understand that everyone we have dealt with in CIC has been cooperative and helpful, and has appeared competent. The point I wish to make is that the system is overloaded, underfunded, understaffed, and poorly organized: we came within a few weeks of Mr. Mia's two-year minister's permit actually expiring before the paperwork for permanent status was completed.

The lack of a forum for presentation of new evidence, combined with poor communication across government units, presents a problem: the removal process carried on, independent of any outstanding humanitarian and compassionate applications. Granted that documentation can be forged unless we check carefully, surely there could be a triage process saying in effect that the government ruled that documentation was absent; this new evidence seems to be exactly what was declared to be absent; and, pending verification, the removal process should be put on hold.

It would not take more than an hour or two decide that the piece of new evidence, on the face of it, seems to fill the gap identified in the refusal decision. Simple communication would save heartache.

The process of settling Samsu Mia, his wife, and four children was inordinately slow and inefficient. The medical certificate for one of the sons was actually lost at CIC and had to be redone at the church's expense. The other five medical certificates expired because they are only good for one year and also had to be redone. Basic forms were filled out two and even three times because officials simply couldn't find them.

Record-keeping is deeply flawed within the system. Samsu Mia's passport was confiscated by the Bangladeshi official in question. Canadian officials had Mia renew his Bangladeshi passport for use in his removal. They immediately confiscated this new passport when it was issued. After Mia was granted permission to stay, this history was put into the record in an affidavit in early 2005.

On September 28, 2006, just five weeks ago, I received a phone call from a CIC official asking for a copy of his passport. This should not happen. The stakes are too high for these kinds of record-keeping errors.

In conclusion, I offer the following.

There must be an appeal process and a regularized method of presenting new evidence. It should not be dependent on churches and on the minister's compassion. It should not require a large, well-organized pressure group to achieve justice.

There must be additional funding for more staff and a reorganization of procedures. The system is in danger of breakdown. Time spent on searching for lost documents could be better spent processing claims.

Thank you for hearing our concerns and allowing us to tell Samsu Mia's story.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you, Mr. Nagy.

And now, Mr. Allen.

[Stephen Allen, Associate Secretary, Justice Ministries, The Presbyterian Church in Canada]

Good morning. My name is Stephen Allen and I serve with the Presbyterian Church in Canada in our national offices in Toronto.

On behalf of our denomination, I thank the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration for the chance to be with you this morning and to brief you on our denomination's policy on sanctuary and, as importantly, how our denomination arrived at that policy.

My focus is going to be a little bit different from the presentations you've heard. You have received our statement, which was approved at our general assembly in June 2006. So it's a recent statement and policy by our denomination.

Our denomination now has the policy for a congregation to provide sanctuary to a claimant whose claim has been rejected and who faces probable risk of persecution or torture if removed to his or her country. Our policy is rooted in our faith. It's a cautious one, and sanctuary is seen as the last resort.

The Presbyterian Church in Canada is a master agreement holder. Many congregations have sponsored refugees over the years. Our church, through our programs overseas, supports refugees and also supports internally displaced people, for example, in Darfur.

I need to take a few minutes to explain our decision-making process in our church as a way of underscoring that the issue was not taken lightly by our general assembly in June.

The highest decision-making body or court, as we refer to our structures, is our general assembly. It meets annually. Each presbytery, a cluster of congregations, and there are 46 presbyteries across the country, sends a specific number of delegates or commissioners to general assembly. Commissioners include both laity and ministers, and there are 350 commissioners from across our church at general assembly. They have read this statement.

Our general assembly is responsible for making decisions on a wide range of issues and our assembly receives what we refer to as overtures; that is, recommendations for the church to prepare a statement or a report and bring forward that statement or report to a future general assembly. Overtures can deal with matters such as educational requirements for a minister transferring from another denomination to our denomination, or an overture may request a statement on sanctuary.

The overture comes to our general assembly from a presbytery, and general assembly may or may not approve receiving that overture. In the case of sanctuary, the general assembly in June 2005 received and approved the overture, which then meant that my office was directed to prepare a response for general assembly in June 2006.

So that's our process. It's a very careful process, which takes into account our structures and the courts of our church.

The draft that was considered by general assembly this past June was reviewed by my advisory committee, by the board I'm accountable to. In addition, there were several external reviewers who critiqued that draft, and I had it reviewed by a theologian at Knox College.

Our board approved the statement. It went forward to general assembly, and in March of this year it was sent to all commissioners across the country.

So that's the process and the timeline.

As an executive staff in my denomination, I am expected to spend the whole week at general assembly, but, unless requested, staff are not permitted to speak or participate in the deliberations. This is the time for commissioners. Again, that reflects the nature of the church's polity.

The debate considered various dimensions of the statement--the theological and ethical dimensions, the international convention, the Canadian context, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the recourses available to failed claimants, and the legal consequences that you've heard about already. The section entitled “A Matter of Conscience and Faith” reviews church doctrine and church polity--that received the most attention in the debate--and then guidelines for congregations and the recommendations that you have before you.

The debate was prayerful. It was thoughtful and at times it was passionate. I have two examples to share with you.

A commissioner—a lay person, a retired member of the Ontario Provincial Police—stood up. This was his first general assembly. He was terribly nervous. He reminded the general assembly that providing sanctuary was in contravention of the law. There was silence. A few minutes later, a retired RCMP officer, a minister of the church, stood up and said, “Yes, this is true.” He reminded the church that we are called to obey a higher authority, and that on matters of conscience our accountability is to God.

A second example was an intervention by another minister in our denomination. He had come from a country in Central America over 20 years ago. He had been severely tortured. In his case, the system worked well. He and his family found refuge in Canada and have now contributed to the life of our society. He acknowledged that the system can work well, but the system is not perfect. He said that if there was a probable risk of persecution if a claimant were returned to his or her country, the church has no choice: it must provide sanctuary. He said that one person returned to face persecution and torture is one person too many.

Our general assembly also requested our moderator to write to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration urging the minister to implement the appeal process as provided for in the act.

Many members of our general assembly were astounded that there is no appeal process on the merits of the case. As one commissioner said, I can appeal my parking violation, but a refugee who has faced insurmountable pressures, tortures, and intimidation cannot appeal the merits of a decision.

It seems that in our justice system the right to appeal the merits of a decision is pretty fundamental, and yet it excludes some of the most vulnerable people on our planet.

I hope members of this committee will support Bill C-280, the private member's bill that calls for the implementation of the refugee appeal division.

You may recall that in December of 2004 the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration unanimously passed a resolution calling for the minister to implement the appeal or to advise the committee as to an alternative proposal. The appeal process has not been implemented, and no alternative proposals were brought forward.

Both the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the UNHCR have said that the lack of an appeal on the merits of the case is a major flaw in our refugee determination system.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you, Mr. Allen.

And thank you all for your presentations. They were very interesting and very well done.

We will move to comments and questions. According to my list, Mr. Wilson, you are first.

[Blair Wilson, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you all for coming and speaking with us and giving us your case.

I have to state that I deeply respect the compassion and commitment you all share in the protection of human rights and the pursuit of moral justice. The committee, as you stated, is obviously deeply concerned with the refugee appeal process and the fact that refugee claimants can only be heard by a single IRB member.

The question I want to ask the panel is, given that the current government continues with the 2001 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act without creating the refugee appeal division that has been called for in the past, and given that there is a major backlog with respect to the number of claimants and the processing time, and given the fact as well that the department is accelerating this backlog with their refusal or inability to appoint staff to the Immigration and Refugee Board to deal with it, if the minister or if a new government were to provide the refugee appeal process, would that be enough for churches to cease providing refugee claimants with sanctuary? If there were an appeal process set up, would churches then not be forced to be in this position? Would that be enough?

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Anyone can answer questions, but I would ask questioners if you would direct your question to someone specific.

[Gordon Walt]

Maybe I could attempt to respond from our point of view. We have discussed within our parish whether or not we would ever offer sanctuary again. The answer was, it would depend on the case. If it is seen that there is a fair, just appeal process and the results of that were correct, then I don't think we would need to offer sanctuary. But it will depend on a case-by-case situation from our point of view.

[Stephen Allen]

If I may respond on behalf of the Presbyterian Church in Canada, Presbyterians are not keen on earthly absolutes. What does that mean? This came up in our general assembly, that if there was an appeal process, does that mean there would never be a need for sanctuary, and the answer from the general assembly was no.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Does anyone else wish to make a comment?

Ms. Macdonald.

[Heather Macdonald]

Yes. I would just speak to that a little.

We've thought about this. We know the pressure would certainly be less, and I think our history gives you the answer. Between 1983 and the present day we've had 14 cases, six of them because there was no appeal.

So we anticipate a very different scenario, but again, we don't believe in earthly absolutes either.

[Blair Wilson, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

What percentage of the people who are seeking sanctuary in your churches have decided or been able to seek the judicial review in Federal Court?

I know that's a costly and expensive undertaking.

[Pierre Gauthier]

Over 90% of the appeals to Federal Court are not even considered, let alone heard or reviewed. As a so-called appeal process that is legal, the Federal Court is a high-test court. It is like going from your small claims court to the Supreme Court in one step. It is very onerous, very expensive. Lawyers need to spend a lot of time, and the rationale I guess is that the Federal Court doesn't want to become the default refugee appeal division that is provided for in the law. So they say no. They don't even give their reasons for saying no in over 90% of the cases.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Ms. Leddy wishes to make a comment.

[Mary Leddy]

There's also the fact that the Federal Court only looks at whether the law was applied. It deals with matters of law, not of fact.

That's what I mean when I say that there are several avenues but they're fragmented and partial. They don't add up to a whole view of the case that involves both questions of law and fact, information as it was given then, but also new information and other considerations. That makes a whole. But right now it is a fragmentation.

If I could just say, effectively the media has become an avenue of appeal. Members of Parliament have become another avenue of appeal. Most of them will say these decisions are being contracted out to our staff. Our staff are bearing the brunt of a lot of this inadequacy of an appeal.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

There is a minute left, Andrew.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

I just want to say to the folks here, thank you very much for what you do.

The previous government was wrong and this government is wrong in not implementing the RAD.

The new IRPA would not have passed with a one-member panel if there was not an appeal. As far as I'm concerned and most members of this committee are concerned, it was done by stealth.

I hate to say this, but governments come and go. Unfortunately, the bureaucratic mindset stays the same.

I am going to get back to other items when I come to the second round, but I truly want to thank you all for what you do, because you put a human face on the system. You help people who have no hope. In many cases you succeed, but unfortunately you can't do enough sanctuaries.